December 6th, 2009
In a classical sense, social transformation is understood as ‘revolution’. A revolution causes the deconstruction of existing institutions, and creates a foundation for structural transformation towards a positive end. The word transformation refers to the change not only in ‘form’ but also in ‘content’.
Social transformation requires the identification of root causes of a social problem, including its structural complexity, and calls for the change in the existing social worldview, as well as in the power balance in political, economic, social and cultural spheres. Social transformation contributes to enhancing people’s level of social and cultural awareness of their situation, especially of the exploitative relations around them, and ending the existing inequality amongst people in term of access to ‘resources, powers and opportunities’.
Social transformation is the positive change in individuals, institutions, culture, and social & physical structures. Increased awareness in individuals and their conscious involvement in social issues bring about changes in the policy of the government and other institutions. Such changes trigger reforms in social norms, traditions, belief systems, religious practices and the functioning of family and community. The modus operandi of social, educational and political institutions; the way media operate; the way recreational industry works and behaves; and the way techno-physical infrastructure (for example, farming, transportation and town planning) is designed also provide a benchmark against which the nature and state of social transformation can be gauged.
Structural Problem, Multi-Dimensional Conflict and Social Transformation
The pre-transition Nepali state, society and economy were fraught with structural problems. The politics after the change of 1990 was limited to a formal democracy. The systems it developed and adopted promoted the interests of the elites. Those who were seen by the people as their exploiters for years became their new rulers.
The democracy that people got following 30-year long struggle got reduced to a political ritual in which every five years people gathered to cast a vote and got, as a result, a farce announcement that a name which they detested became their representative. The resultant centralised state turned, in the eyes of the people, to a mechanism in which it made general people pay taxes to serve the interest of city centres, while the state as a whole limited its functions to serve the interest of the capital. Even in the changed context, people were made to behave like passive subjects. Despite the 1990 Constitution directing the state to serve as a welfare state, it adopted a policy of ‘serving the rich by the poor’. Social relations remained as unequal as before, and continued to reinforce the pyramidal hierarchies created by ancien regimes.
A multidimensional conflict emerged from this structural problem, having basically embedded in two broad issues of class exploitation and social oppression. The conflict was ‘all in one’ of the following:
By social transformation, in our context, is to alter the existing social structure that has reinforced the five-dimensional conflict stated above, and enable all people, to whom it matters, to have equal and just access to resources, powers and opportunities.
Transformation: Where and How?
Transformation for the establishment of equitable and just society should address issues at three levels: state, society and economy. The current debate is centred on state restructuring as a means to transformation. And, state restructuring has focused on federalism, participation and inclusion.
Nepali state is centralised, rather ‘heavily centralised’ when it comes to exercise of power. Even the privilege of sovereign people to make decision on crucial matters has been craftily centralised by the ‘representatives’. Everything is capital-centred, even the decision-making at the local level. So far the Nepali state has remained a long way from the people.
The other meaning of transformation is to address the issues generated by the conflict. The first imperative towards this end is to eliminate the tradition of ruling on the basis of dynastic influence. The right of people to participate in governance and law-making processes should not be manipulated in any pretexts. They should have an opportunity to participate in decisions about matters affecting them, their families, communities and environment. Such a transformation will have the following formulaic formulation: ‘democracy in place of monarchy; multiparty, plurality-promoting democracy replacing all forms of authoritarianisms; and federal-participatory local governance in place of centralised, formal multiparty polity’. Once this formula is translated into practical realisation, Nepali state and politics undergo transformation in its genuine sense.
The dimension of social oppression has now been an issue of hot debate. Social oppression is being defined as oppression of ‘women by men in, and of, all castes, classes and communities’, of ‘Dalits by the framework of caste prescribed as per Hindu-religion’, of ‘ethnic groups and communities by ‘advanced’ caste groups’, of Madhesi people by those of Hill origin’ and of ‘outlying rural areas by urban areas’.
The solution to this complex is prescribed to inhere in ‘transformation though social inclusion’ or inclusive transformation, one that contributes to the establishment of gender conscious, local language promoting and regional issue promoting society thereby ending the exiting unitary and divisive social relation. This formulaic prescription seeks to promote inclusion along caste and regional lines, which in fact is not an appropriate prescription for the sole reason that inclusion and representation should in a plural system be sought from the frame of political parties.
A party is a representative of a class. Without a class bias, a party turns to be a clique of a few individuals worried simply to get their vested interested addressed. Class is an ‘ideological-theoretical’ construct. Ethnic/regional/gender issues are concerned with identity. ‘Class’ connects a whole nation together. ‘Ethnic/regional/gender’ divisions simply draw of line of identity amongst communities and regional inhabitants.
Social transformation calls for the end of social oppression, and change of existing social and cultural attributes and practices.
Today, those with power and influence have access to all rights and privileges. They have a complete control over means and resources. Those without power and influence are completely deprived of basic opportunities and resources. This unequal social and economic pyramid needs to change to ensure transformation of economy, a transformation that ends elitist control over means and resources and guarantees that the poor and workers have their basic human rights promoted and respected.
The establishment of a welfare state based on the principles of social justice is in fact the transformation of economy. This is possible only through redistribution of national income. Progressive tax should be levied on those with high income to expand national reserves with which to build a package of social security. Such package should guarantee basic needs, and relief and welfare support to low-income groups of people. The nature of transformed economy will be to extend social support to those in need.
This we can call ‘economic inclusion’. Just as social inclusion represents and addresses gender, ethnic and regional issues; economic inclusion addresses and represents class issues and concerns. Economic inclusion is also to transform the existing unequal economic relations to make sure that the working people have an equal access to means and resources. It is also to establish a balance between labour and capital. Those working on a wage basis are workers, despite having been a few income-specific sub groups within themselves.
Whether a state is unitary or federal is a technical issue. Unless the ‘class’ factor is taken into consideration economic transformation is not possible regardless of the nature of the state. Workers cannot realise any fundamental change unless broader issues of economy and work organisation are transformed. An inclusive and participatory loktantra enables people to access to resources, powers and opportunities. For loktantra to be meaningful for the workers working environment and work organisation should be democratised. In lack of dignified work, a working environment does not undergo democratisation.
Working environment and unions should be controlled by workers to ensure that a work is decent and dignified. Forced labour, child labour and other exploitative labour relations should be prohibited. Workers should have the right to form and join a trade union of their choice to engage freely in collective bargaining. Workers should not suffer discrimination on grounds of caste, gender, political belief, birth or descent and nationality.